This is notable for several reasons. The first being that this is a substantial savings from what he was originally projected as being worth going into the free agent season. At Twins Daily, we estimated that Garza would reach five years and $75 million. Instead, teams shied away from him. The second interesting piece is that this deal is basically the same one that the Twins gave starter Ricky Nolasco earlier in the winter (4 years, $49M + options).Comparatively, Garza, who is a year younger than Nolasco, has had a slightly better career. However, since 2010, the pair has been surprisingly similar:

What you see is that while the raw numbers are very alike, Garza gets better marks for his ERA, xFIP and FIP for spending time in the American League while Nolasco has been in the National League.

Of course, one of the biggest concerns by teams making these sizeable investments is how a player will hold up over the course of that agreement. In Nolasco’s case, he has been rock solid over his career meanwhile Garza has been in-and-out of infirmaries for arm-related ailments (Nolasco’s have been mainly truck and thigh).

Should the Twins have waited for Garza at the same rate? What are your thoughts?

"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." -- Jim Bouton, "Ball Four"

If that is all it took, I wish they'd have signed him and not Pelfrey.......

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. Also, I am NOT trying to convince anyone I am correct, I'm just talking here, not arguing.

Despite what the Twins (and Garza) have been saying publicly, I find it really hard to believe that a reunion could ever be possible, after what happened at his first stint with the Twins, which led to his departure. Not if the people involved then are the same who are running the team now.

Should the Twins have waited for Garza at the same rate? What are your thoughts?

I know this isn't your stance, Parker, or at least it probably isn't your stance but I find this argument to be untenable upon examination.

The bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and all that. The Twins have been burned in recent years by "waiting the market out" on pitchers and ended up scrounging junk off the pile because of it (well, that and dollars and years).

There was no reason to expect Tanaka to hold the entire market hostage for two months. There was no reason to expect teams to shy away from Garza for as long as they did.

Would I prefer Garza over Nolasco at the same price? Sure, I think that's pretty obvious... But if you're Terry Ryan in November, you can't bank on either Nolasco or Garza being available in late January or you're going to get burned on the free agent market almost every season if you wait it out and hope "your guy" is still available.

You go get the guy you want at the price you're willing to pay. It's as simple as that. If there are "leftovers" at the end of the offseason, sure, you reevaluate at that time but don't delay your offseason plans in hopes that a guy will float in limbo for two months and that it will drive down the price... Because that's a pretty rare occurrence and can't be reliably predicted (or every team would employ this strategy every offseason).

Just goes to show you have been putting your hand in the wrong bush:th_alc:
It would of and should of been the Twins signing Garza, wow It would have been the best off season since gravey was invented, the Twins adding a Legit #2/3 and #3/4 starter, and still having Stewart and Meyer in the pipeline....wow

It was pretty clear that the Garza camp was waiting until after Tanaka was resolved. Frankly, given the abysmal state of Twins pitching in 2013, I don't think the Twins could wait to see what happened with him. They needed to sign Nolasco and Hughes early.

They probably could have waited before signing Pelfrey but even with Pelfrey signed, I think they still could have signed Garza -- I just don't think it was very likely as Thrylos stated.

At this point I would rate the Twins' off-season at about a C+/B-. But they still have time (and money) to do a little more work.

With the Brewers getting Garza for a reasonable rate, I wonder if they were one of the few teams that offered a 4th year? There was quite a bit of speculation that many teams (the Twins included) were "in" so long as they didn't have to go too long in years. Perhaps the Brewers offered a 4th year other teams weren't comfortable with and thus got Garza for a good price. It'll be interesting to see how close other teams were as more details come out on his signing.

Yeah, on the face of it, this will be by far the best contract any team inks this offseason from a value standpoint.

If the Twins had signed this, we'd all be rubbing our eyes to try and believe they managed it. This is a REALLY good deal for the Brewers. Even if he flops and has injury issues, right now there is no way to judge this as anything but a huge win.

Fans of the Orioles and other near-contenders with needs and money to spend have to be just hating this.